Do you need an abortion? Did you bring a note?

[AthenaAwakened]

Lol we DO have some weird things going on, that just doesn't happen to be one of them. Sad thing is that some of the republicans have suggested things close enough to it that it got my heart rate up too! I had to go read more carefully to get my own heart rate down!

I would have let the joke run if you weren't so upset about it. It just seemed a little too cruel to leave you upset .

Thanks Emily. I am also amazed that your government will subsidise viagra type medications, but not contraceptive ones. *shakes head in wonder at that one.

Why? Old men want boners. Old men (and men who hoped to one day be old) make laws. Simple.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I'd like to step in and remind everyone that most ladies want boners as well and that erectile disfunction medication is often demanded of men by their female partners. When there are no boners, things get awkward and everybody loses.

Now back to the discussion.

 

[Derec]

Thanks Emily. I am also amazed that your government will subsidise viagra type medications, but not contraceptive ones. *shakes head in wonder at that one.

Obamacare subsidizes female contraceptives to the tune of 100%. I really think you are misinformed about "our government".

 

[ksen]

Oh, so people still 'get off at Redfern' then?

(For those not in the know, Redfern is a suburb that is one stop away from Sydney Central station, so instead of going 'all the way' you can 'get off' slightly earlier and 'walk' the rest of the way).



I've found that by only having sex with men, I've really never had a pregnancy scare with a partner.

More guys should try it.

How come if a woman has sex with 5 different men, everybody calls her a slut, but if a man does it

Show

everybody thinks he's gay? [emoji14]

stealing

 

[gmbteach]

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

 

[Toni]

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

My husband would agree whole heartedly.

 

[gmbteach]

I don't actually disagree with most of what you've said here. I wish I could imagine a society wherein such a plan would be possible.

- - - Updated - - -

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

In most states he can

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

Condoms are not by prescription. Female OTC contraception is not covered by insurance either.

Viagra for men is though.

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

Please find quote above - as promised.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

My husband would agree whole heartedly.

I must spread more reputation around before giving to Toni again.

 

[RavenSky]

I don't actually disagree with most of what you've said here. I wish I could imagine a society wherein such a plan would be possible.

- - - Updated - - -

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

In most states he can

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

Condoms are not by prescription. Female OTC contraception is not covered by insurance either.

Viagra for men is though.

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

Please find quote above - as promised.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

My husband would agree whole heartedly.

I must spread more reputation around before giving to Toni again.

Please read what I actually wrote. OTC = over the counter. Condoms are OTC. Spermicides are OTC. Those are not covered for men or for women. Prescription contraceptives are covered by ACA... at least they are supposed to be except when conservative corporate owners decide they won't allow it.

 

[gmbteach]

I don't actually disagree with most of what you've said here. I wish I could imagine a society wherein such a plan would be possible.

- - - Updated - - -

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

In most states he can

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

Condoms are not by prescription. Female OTC contraception is not covered by insurance either.

Viagra for men is though.

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

Please find quote above - as promised.

- - - Updated - - -

There was a quote further back that said that contraception wasn't covered and Viagra was. Difficult to find on iPad, will look when on computer.

Here, HRT isn't covered and it should be. I pay a lot for it because I knoe I need it. We sometimes joke that all the women need to go off their HRT and wait three days and storm the mad monks office. The law would get change then.

My husband would agree whole heartedly.

I must spread more reputation around before giving to Toni again.

Please read what I actually wrote. OTC = over the counter. Condoms are OTC. Spermicides are OTC. Those are not covered for men or for women. Prescription contraceptives are covered by ACA... at least they are supposed to be except when conservative corporate owners decide they won't allow it.

I sit corrected.

 

[Emily Lake]

Thanks Emily. I am also amazed that your government will subsidise viagra type medications, but not contraceptive ones. *shakes head in wonder at that one.

Why? Old men want boners. Old men (and men who hoped to one day be old) make laws. Simple.

It's not even that complicated, Athena. Old men want to have sex, by golly, and it's the duty of every woman to make sure that they get it! Not giving them sex whenever they want it is a violation of their god-given right! It's why god made Eve subordinate to Adam, after all, dontchaknow!

 

[ZiprHead]

I totally agree. :devil-smiley-029:

 

[Playball40]

Do mothers have the option to give their baby up to the state for adoption or foster care, if they do not want to raise him/her and be financially responsible for him/her? Do fathers have this option? If not, why not?

Are babies not a benefit to all of society? So shouldn't we all equally pay to support them? Are they any special benefit to their biological parents if their biological parents have given up all custody? If not, then why should they be especially financially responsible? Why should any parent who has given up full custody be financially responsible for the children?

Actually the mothers cannot give the baby up for adoption without consent and knowledge of the father. If the father cannot be found, it must be posted in a paper.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And if this is done, can she give it up to the state and thereby end any financial obligation for support? If not, why not? And if so, why can't the father?

 

[Toni]

And if this is done, can she give it up to the state and thereby end any financial obligation for support? If not, why not? And if so, why can't the father?

Actually, I am not certain that Playball40 is correct about it being sufficient to post in the newspaper before relinquishing baby for adoption.

What I am certain of is that if the mother wishes to give up the baby for adoption, the father can claim custody and can also go after the mother for child support. While I think it should be the case that if the bio father raped the mother that the rapist bio father would have neither claim to the child nor claim to any support or visitation or any rights whatsoever aside from the usual rights afforded inmates in correctional institutions, I am not at all certain this is how it works in all states.

 

[Underseer]

And if this is done, can she give it up to the state and thereby end any financial obligation for support? If not, why not? And if so, why can't the father?

Actually, I am not certain that Playball40 is correct about it being sufficient to post in the newspaper before relinquishing baby for adoption.

What I am certain of is that if the mother wishes to give up the baby for adoption, the father can claim custody and can also go after the mother for child support. While I think it should be the case that if the bio father raped the mother that the rapist bio father would have neither claim to the child nor claim to any support or visitation or any rights whatsoever aside from the usual rights afforded inmates in correctional institutions, I am not at all certain this is how it works in all states.

Wait. You think rapists shouldn't get custody much less child support? You're one of those Jesus-hating communist freaks, aren't you? Why do you hate god? Why can't you ever stop persecuting Christians? [/christianstrawman]

 

[Terrell]

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/17/you...on/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

And just when my migraine was letting up.

Darn it Athena! I didn't have a migraine today... until I read that! It's you. It's all your fault. That's what I'm going with for the moment anyway. ], hten I'll blame it on the stupid republicans. But until then, you're the proximal cause
When the ice-pick-through-the-side-of-the-skull lets up
There is no hug smiley, so this will have to do to express my sympathy for your migraine. As a fellow sufferer, I know how you feel

On the migraines, my sympathies as well.

As to this law, I don't think that people should need the consent of others to get abortions, same applies to voluntary sterilization. IMO on the issue of voluntary sterilization, a doctor should be able to require you sign a form waiving the right to sue should you change your mind about children, but I don't think that they should require you to get another person's permission. I don't think that a 3rd party should be able to sue either the doctor, or the person who was sterilized over the vasectomy or tubal.

On the issue of relinquishing parental rights, there are safe haven laws that allow you to leave your infant at a fire station, hospital, or some other places, under at least some circumstances. The specifics may vary depending on where you live. These were a response to, for lack of a better phrase, "dumpster babies".

 

[credoconsolans]

On the issue of relinquishing parental rights, there are safe haven laws that allow you to leave your infant at a fire station, hospital, or some other places, under at least some circumstances. The specifics may vary depending on where you live. These were a response to, for lack of a better phrase, "dumpster babies".

This depends on the age of the child. After a few weeks of age, this law no longer applies.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Adoption laws can vary state to state. As can and do custody laws. What may be true in Indiana may no hold true in Illinois.

 

[Rhea]

On the issue of relinquishing parental rights, there are safe haven laws that allow you to leave your infant at a fire station, hospital, or some other places, under at least some circumstances. The specifics may vary depending on where you live. These were a response to, for lack of a better phrase, "dumpster babies".

This depends on the age of the child. After a few weeks of age, this law no longer applies.

But in those first weeks, some societies have determined that the health of the child is more important than making sure the parent(s) get their "consequences." Which is as it should be if a society is civilized, IMHO.

 

[Metaphor]

This depends on the age of the child. After a few weeks of age, this law no longer applies.

But in those first weeks, some societies have determined that the health of the child is more important than making sure the parent(s) get their "consequences." Which is as it should be if a society is civilized, IMHO.

The x-week 'cutoff' doesn't really make sense, though. After all, the State could take away anyone's child if it were being abused or neglected, and when they're taken away the parent loses all custody rights as well as financial obligations (since the child is with the State).

It's a terrible moral hazard if the only way parents can 'offload' their kids to the State is by abusing or neglecting them first.